|Resurgence of Ehow, Hubpages, Other Panda Victims?|
| 3:24 pm on Apr 28, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Hi there, Everyone:
Have you noticed a resurgence in ehow, hubpages, and other sites that were previous Panda victims?
Seems to me like they are ranking above my site for same the subject, even though my site is more-or-less focused on a a narrow niche, and the links to my site tend to come from similarly narrow focused sites.
The ehow / hubpages pages are, not surprisingly, thinner than mine, contain inaccuracies, and cite my page as a reference.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised by anything google does now...
| 3:17 am on Apr 29, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Yes, I've been noticing it as well. I'm also seeing EzineArticles getting ranked well at times (bouncing around, mostly).
Also seeing newspapers.
I *think* it has more to do with Google ranking pages which aren't completely related to the overall theme of the site. Maybe a retune of their "if x isn't related to the theme then it doesn't rank well" algorithm. Probably just expanded to something like if Y>10,000 pages then X related to Z% of pages then show in index with N% of link juice available.
| 3:37 am on Apr 29, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Yes! I have to say that they never quite disappeared from the SERPs I check but one year after Panda I can now find two(!) ehow.com and at least one ehow.co.uk in the same SERP (Google.com from US). They were common in these SERPs a year ago. Now they completely dominate the SERPs.
Oh, and by the way, the area I'm playing in also has ehow clones and look-alikes. You can now have SERPs where 4-5 results on page 1 of SERPs are from various content farms.
But speaking of Ehow specifically, they came back so strongly, I now have to try 10-15 terms to find one that does not have at least one ehow link (or two or three)
| 7:16 am on Apr 29, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Yeah, noticed the panda victims returning...
The penalty du jour takes precedence over the older penalties. )
| 8:52 am on Apr 29, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|The ehow / hubpages pages are, not surprisingly, thinner than mine, contain inaccuracies, and cite my page as a reference. |
And the link citations are always nofollowed. ;)
Hard to say if these results will stick. One possibility is that Google is testing a different mixture of searcher intents in the top ten, and Google might feel that eHow is the best for one type of page that many people want... not necessarily "better" than yours, but probably more popular. They may, eg, see the ehow page as a quick read for the superficial reader... and perhaps this is a type of page that Google is now measuring against others.
I doubt that Google can judge accuracy... I'm afraid they need to leave that to the judgement of the users over time.
It may also be that Google has rolled back the scraper update from way back, perhaps to re-calibrate. In this regard, a page of mine that I know is original came back a few weeks ago after having been scraped to death... more or less disappearing for almost two years. It used to rank for a single-word term... now ranks for phrases that include the single word... and I've come to understand the variety of reasons why Google is preferring what it's preferring.
The new rankings do make more sense if you make different assumptions about what people are looking for than I did when I wrote the page... and at least the page is no longer being filtered because of its similarity to so many scrapers.
One big concern I have, btw, with regard to these thin eHow pages ranking again, is that their resurgence might indicate that we're in a popularity contest among "well-dressed" sites, and old jeans and overalls may be out for a while. I know this definitely not true for all types of queries/answers, as I still see a bunch of Times Roman, but it might be true for the popularized quick-info kind of page that eHow represents.
I should say, btw, that I've found that eHow articles are not always bad. There's a lot to be said for good layout and semi-decent editing, even when mixed with pablum.
| 9:04 am on Apr 29, 2012 (gmt 0)|
Maybe they pushed some wrong code that inverted Panda for the latest refresh, would explain a lot of stuff.
| 3:56 pm on Apr 29, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|One big concern I have, btw, with regard to these thin eHow pages ranking again, is that their resurgence might indicate that we're in a popularity contest among "well-dressed" sites, and old jeans and overalls may be out for a while. |
To me, if we are looking at onpage factors only, I would think it would be easy for us smaller "experts" in a particular field to compete against them. I mean, the average ehow page really only has a low bar to have to beat, both in terms of content and layout (I find that they have way too many ads interfering with the user experience, and I am surprised that google doesn't feel this way, too).
However, if the ranking is based more on site-wide factors (such as overall domain "authroity" or "trust") then I really don't know how one can outrank them.
One who knows their topic well can EASILY create a page that is more informative and helpful than ehow's pages, yet much more concise and user-friendly than wikipedia's pages, yet be swamped by the tidal wave of "authority" that these two domain's have.
So I guess my question is whether the Panda effect has been rolled back, or whether ehow / hubpages / etc have discovered some new formula for overcoming Panda (hubpages CEO mentioned putting individual authors on separate subdomains). Or whether it is part of a more elaborate "test" by google (as Robert Charlton alluded to).
| 4:27 pm on Apr 29, 2012 (gmt 0)|
About dot com also made a comeback over the last month or so.
| 10:10 pm on Apr 30, 2012 (gmt 0)|
|About dot com also made a comeback over the last month or so. |
good catch, BillyS; have seen them ranking much better lately, too (although I don't know how much they were affected by Panda).
I also notice that the live strong site ranks usually second to about for health / nutrition searches (which, unfortunately to a recent diagnosis, I have been doing a lot more of lately).